rapid review vs literature review

• Search Menu
• Advance Articles
• Editor's Choice
• Supplements
• Patient Perspectives
• Methods Corner
• Science for Patients
• Invited Commentaries
• ESC Content Collections
• Author Guidelines
• Instructions for reviewers
• Submission Site
• Why publish with EJCN?
• Open Access Options
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Read & Publish
• About European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing
• About ACNAP
• About European Society of Cardiology
• ESC Publications
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• War in Ukraine
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

The problem: what if you need a synthesis of the evidence now, a solution: rapid reviews, examples of rapid reviews, limitations and pitfalls of rapid reviews, data availability.

• < Previous

Rapid reviews: the pros and cons of an accelerated review process

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Philip Moons, Eva Goossens, David R. Thompson, Rapid reviews: the pros and cons of an accelerated review process, European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing , Volume 20, Issue 5, June 2021, Pages 515–519, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvab041

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Although systematic reviews are the method of choice to synthesize scientific evidence, they can take years to complete and publish. Clinicians, managers, and policy-makers often need input from scientific evidence in a more timely and resource-efficient manner. For this purpose, rapid reviews are conducted. Rapid reviews are performed using an accelerated process. However, they should not be less systematic than standard systematic reviews, and the introduction of bias must be avoided. In this article, we describe what rapid reviews are, present their characteristics, give some examples, highlight potential pitfalls, and draw attention to the importance of evidence summaries in order to facilitate adoption in clinical decision-making.

Knowing what rapid reviews are.

Understanding the features and benefits of rapid reviews.

Recognizing the limitations of rapid reviews and knowing when they are not the preferred choice.

Researchers, clinicians, managers, and policy-makers are typical consumers of empirical work published in the scientific literature. For researchers, reviewing the literature is part of the empirical cycle, in order to generate new research questions and to discuss their own study findings. When the available evidence has to be searched for, collated, critiqued, and summarized, systematic reviews are the gold standard. 1 Systematic reviews are rigorous in approach and transparent about how studies were searched, selected, and assessed. Doing so, they limit bias and random error, and hence, they yield the most valid and trustworthy evidence. Systematic reviews can be complemented by meta-analyses to compute an overall mean effect, proportion, or relationship. 2 Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are seen as the pillars of evidence-based healthcare. The rigour in the methodology of a systematic review, however, also means that it often takes between 6 months and 2 years to undertake. 3

Clinicians, managers, and policy-makers also use the literature for their decision-making. They often cannot afford to wait for 2 years to get the answer to their questions by means of a systematic review. The evidence must be synthesized without undue delays. 4 Furthermore, the synthesis and reporting of systematic reviews often fail to address the needs of the users at the point of care 5 and are considered to be too large and too complex. 3 To facilitate the uptake of research findings in clinical practice, other types of reviews with a shorter lead time are needed, and alternative evidence summaries have to be developed. 5

Rapid reviews have been proposed as a method to provide summaries of the literature in a timely and resource-efficient manner by using methods to accelerate or streamline traditional systematic review processes. 5 , 6 It is argued that rapid reviews should be conducted in less than 8 weeks. 4 The purpose of rapid reviews is to respond to urgent situations or political pressures, often in a rapidly changing field. The typical target audiences for rapid reviews are policy-makers, healthcare institutions, managers, professionals, and patient associations. 6 The first rapid reviews were published in the 1960s and proliferated in the mid-2010s. Not surprisingly, the number of rapid reviews have boomed in 2020, in response to the global SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic (see Figure 1 ). Indeed, this pandemic has had a huge impact on healthcare delivery, 7–9 and triggered unprecedented clinical questions that needed a prompt answer. 10 Healthcare research, also, has had to adapt swiftly to the drastically changed situation. 11

Number of publications in the Pubmed database (1960–2020) referring to ‘rapid review’ (search performed 16 March 2021).

A rapid review is a ‘a form of knowledge synthesis that accelerates the process of conducting a traditional systematic review through streamlining or omitting various methods to produce evidence for stakeholders in a resource-efficient manner’. 12 There is not a single-validated methodology in conducting rapid reviews. 13 Therefore, variation in methodological quality of rapid reviews can be observed. 14 When adopting the ‘Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) framework’ to rapid reviews, it is stipulated that the completeness of the search is determined by time constraints; the quality appraisal is time-limited, if performed at all; the synthesis is narrative and tabular; and the analysis pertains to the overall quality/direction of effect of literature. 15 In Table 1 , we describe the SALSA characteristics of rapid reviews and systematic reviews. Rapid reviews should not be less systematic, and they must adhere to the core principles of systematic reviews to avoid bias in the inclusion, assessment, and synthesis of studies. 4 The typical characteristic of a rapid review is that it provides less in-depth information and detail in its recommendations. 6 It is essential, however, that deviations from traditional systematic review methods are described well in the methods section. This can, for instance, be done by explicating where the PRISMA criteria were omitted or adapted. 4 The speed with which a rapid review is conducted largely depends on the availability of human and financial resources. 4 There is also often a close interaction between the commissioners and the reviewers because the review purports to guide decision-making.

Distinction between rapid and systematic reviews

Based on Grant and Booth. 15

Although rapid reviews do not meet the gold standard of systematic reviews, and therefore do have their limitations (see below), they frequently provide adequate advice on which to base clinical and policy decisions. 13 A direct comparison of the findings from rapid and full systematic reviews showed that the essential conclusions did not differ extensively. 13 Given the importance of rapid reviews, the Cochrane collaboration has established the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group, which recently developed actionable recommendations and minimum standards for rapid reviews ( Table 2 ). 16

Cochrane rapid review methods recommendations

Reproduced from Garritty et al . 16 published under the CC BY-NC-ND license.

To date, three rapid reviews have been published in the European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing . 17–19 The first, published in 2017, assessed the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions on psychological distress in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. 17 A second rapid review, published in 2020 amidst the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic in Asia, Europe, and North America, looked at the evidence for remote healthcare during quarantine situations to support people living with cardiovascular diseases. 18 Given the unprecedented global situation and the sense of urgency, this was a pre-eminent example for which a rapid review was appropriate. A third rapid review, published in 2021, investigated if participation in a support-based intervention exclusively for caregivers of people living with heart failure change their psychological and emotional wellbeing. 19 The authors explicitly chose the streamlined method of a rapid review to inform the methodological approach of a future caregiver-based intervention. 19

Although rapid and systematic reviews have shown to yield similar conclusions, 13 , 20 there are definitely some limitations or pitfalls to bear in mind. For instance, rapidity may lead to brevity. 4 In such cases, the search may be restricted to one database; limited inclusion criteria by date or language; having one person screen and another verify studies; not conducting quality appraisal; or presenting results only as a narrative summary. 14 If only one database is used, it is recommended to search Pubmed, because rapid reviews that did not use Pubmed as a database are more likely to obtain results that differ from systematic reviews. 21 It is also recommended that a quality appraisal of the included studies is not skipped. For this purpose, appraisal tools that account for different methodologies are very suitable, such as the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). 22 It has also been observed that rapid reviews are often not explicitly defining the methodology that had been used. 4 , 13 Consequently, the search cannot always be replicated and the reasons for the differences between the findings are difficult to comprehend. Further, it is not clear if the review was performed in a systematic fashion, which is also mandatory for rapid reviews. Otherwise, they may bear the risks of any other narrative review or poorly conducted systematic review. 4 Rapid reviews should not be seen as a quick alternative to a full systematic review, 13 and authors must avoid making shortcuts that could lead to bias. 6 Therefore, a thorough evaluation of the appropriateness of a rapid review methodology, being the need for a summary of the evidence without delay, is imperative. If there is no urgent need to obtain the evidence for clinical practice or policy-making, a full systematic review would be more suitable. Furthermore, when there is a high need for accuracy, for instance for clinical guidelines or regulatory affairs, a systematic review is still the best option. 21

Transparency in the description of the methods used is of critical importance to appraise the quality of the rapid review. 4 A scoping review of rapid reviews found that the quality of reporting is generally poor. 14 This may lead to the interpretation that rapid reviews are inherently inferior to full systematic reviews, whereas this is not the case if properly conducted and reported. It is also vital to acknowledge the potential limitations of rapidity.

Since the typical reports of systematic reviews are often too long and too complex for clinicians and decision-makers, 3 new formats of evidence summaries have been developed. 5 Evidence summaries are synopses that summarize existing international evidence on healthcare interventions or activities’. 5 For rapid reviews, reporting the evidence in tabular format is indispensable to be used at the point of care. Such evidence summaries can be even integrated in electronic patient records, to provide recommendations for the care for that patient, based on their specific characteristics. 5 An extensive database with evidence summaries has been developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute ( https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/know/jbi-resources/jbi-ebp-database, last accessed 27 March 2021 ).

Rapid reviews are meant to inform specific clinical or policy decisions in a timely and resource-efficient fashion. They are conducted within a timeframe of some weeks. The rapidity refers to the accelerated process but should not come at the cost of losing any of the important information that could be expected from full systematic reviews, and the introduction of biases that may jeopardize the validity of the conclusions must be avoided. The quality of rapid reviews is as important as for traditional systematic reviews. Rapid reviews need to be explicit in the methodology that has been used and clearly state how the review differs from a full systematic review. Sufficient attention ought to be given to the evidence summaries because the format of these summaries will largely determine the adoption in clinical care or decision-making.

The article is based on a review of the literature. No specific data sources have been used.

Conflict of interest : none declared.

Munn Z , Stern C , Aromataris E , Lockwood C , Jordan Z. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences . BMC Med Res Methodol 2018 ; 18 : 5 .

Google Scholar

Ruppar T. Meta-analysis: how to quantify and explain heterogeneity? Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 646 – 652 .

Khangura S , Konnyu K , Cushman R , Grimshaw J , Moher D. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach . Syst Rev 2012 ; 1 : 10 .

Schünemann HJ , Moja L. Reviews: Rapid! Rapid! Rapid! …and systematic . Syst Rev 2015 ; 4 : 4 .

Munn Z , Lockwood C , Moola S. The development and use of evidence summaries for point of care information systems: a streamlined rapid review approach . Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2015 ; 12 : 131 – 138 .

Ganann R , Ciliska D , Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews . Implement Sci 2010 ; 5 : 56 .

Klompstra L , Jaarsma T. Delivering healthcare at distance to cardiac patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: experiences from clinical practice . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 551 – 552 .

Lauck S , Forman J , Borregaard B , Sathananthan J , Achtem L , McCalmont G , Muir D , Hawkey MC , Smith A , Højberg Kirk B , Wood DA , Webb JG. Facilitating transcatheter aortic valve implantation in the era of COVID-19: recommendations for programmes . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 537 – 544 .

Hill L , Beattie JM , Geller TP , Baruah R , Boyne J , Stolfo GD , Jaarsma T. Palliative care: essential support for patients with heart failure in the COVID-19 pandemic . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 469 – 472 .

Tricco AC , Garritty CM , Boulos L , Lockwood C , Wilson M , McGowan J , McCaul M , Hutton B , Clement F , Mittmann N , Devane D , Langlois EV , Abou-Setta AM , Houghton C , Glenton C , Kelly SE , Welch VA , LeBlanc A , Wells GA , Pham B , Lewin S , Straus SE. Rapid review methods more challenging during COVID-19: commentary with a focus on 8 knowledge synthesis steps . J Clin Epidemiol 2020 ; 126 : 177 – 183 .

Van Bulck L , Kovacs AH , Goossens E , Luyckx K , Jaarsma T , Stromberg A , Moons P. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on ongoing cardiovascular research projects: considerations and adaptations . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 465 – 468 .

Hamel C , Michaud A , Thuku M , Skidmore B , Stevens A , Nussbaumer-Streit B , Garritty C. Defining rapid reviews: a systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of rapid reviews . J Clin Epidemiol 2021 ; 129 : 74 – 85 .

Watt A , Cameron A , Sturm L , Lathlean T , Babidge W , Blamey S , Facey K , Hailey D , Norderhaug I , Maddern G. Rapid versus full systematic reviews: validity in clinical practice? ANZ J Surg 2008 ; 78 : 1037 – 1040 .

Tricco AC , Antony J , Zarin W , Strifler L , Ghassemi M , Ivory J , Perrier L , Hutton B , Moher D , Straus SE. A scoping review of rapid review methods . BMC Med 2015 ; 13 : 224 .

Grant MJ , Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Info Libr J 2009 ; 26 : 91 – 108 .

Garritty C , Gartlehner G , Nussbaumer-Streit B , King VJ , Hamel C , Kamel C , Affengruber L , Stevens A. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews . J Clin Epidemiol 2021 ; 130 : 13 – 22 .

Carroll DL , Malecki-Ketchell A , Astin F. Non-pharmacological interventions to reduce psychological distress in patients undergoing diagnostic cardiac catheterization: a rapid review . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2017 ; 16 : 92 – 103 .

Neubeck L , Hansen T , Jaarsma T , Klompstra L , Gallagher R. Delivering healthcare remotely to cardiovascular patients during COVID-19: a rapid review of the evidence . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 486 – 494 .

Carleton-Eagleton K , Walker I , Freene N , Gibson D , Semple S. Meeting support needs for informal caregivers of people with heart failure: a rapid review . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2021 .

Best L , Stevens A , Colin‐Jones D. Rapid and responsive health technology assessment: the development and evaluation process in the South and West region of England . J Clin Eff 1997 ; 2 : 51 – 56 .

Marshall IJ , Marshall R , Wallace BC , Brassey J , Thomas J. Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study . J Clin Epidemiol 2019 ; 109 : 30 – 41 .

Hong QN , Gonzalez-Reyes A , Pluye P. Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) . J Eval Clin Pract 2018 ; 24 : 459 – 467 .

Email alerts

Companion articles.

• Meeting support needs for informal caregivers of people with heart failure: a rapid review
• Comment on rapid reviews
• Response to letter from Dr Riegel and Mr James

Citing articles via

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1873-1953
• Print ISSN 1474-5151
• Copyright © 2024 European Society of Cardiology
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs

Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness

• Related content
• Peer review
• Chantelle Garritty , adjunct professor and manager 1 2 ,
• Candyce Hamel , adjunct professor and senior epidemiologist 1 3 ,
• Marialena Trivella , research associate, senior methodologist, and assistant professor 4 5 6 ,
• Gerald Gartlehner , professor and senior health research analyst 4 7 ,
• Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit , co-director 4 ,
• Declan Devane , professor 8 ,
• Chris Kamel , director 9 ,
• Ursula Griebler , senior research associate 4 ,
• Valerie J King , professor 10
• on behalf of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group
• 1 School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, K1G 5Z3, Canada
• 2 Global Health and Guidelines Division, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada
• 3 Canadian Association of Radiologists, Ottawa, ON, Canada
• 4 Cochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria
• 5 Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
• 6 Department of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
• 7 Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
• 8 Cochrane Ireland and Evidence Synthesis Ireland, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland
• 9 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Ottawa, ON, Canada
• 10 Center for Evidence-based Policy, Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU), Portland, OR, USA
• Correspondence to: C Garritty chantelle.garritty{at}uottawa.ca (or @cgarritty on Twitter)
• Accepted 2 January 2023

This article provides updated guidance on methods for conducting rapid reviews of effectiveness, targeted at Cochrane and other stakeholders interested in the methodology of rapid reviews. The guidance, developed by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group, builds upon previous interim guidance, and incorporates changes based on an evaluation of its application, a scope of the literature on rapid review methodology, and input from a diverse group of experts in rapid review methods. The guidance consists of 24 specific recommendations supporting the conduct of rapid reviews, applicable both within and outside Cochrane. It underscores the importance of considering the appropriateness of undertaking rapid reviews and advocates for a tailored, iterative approach to each review. Key defining features of rapid reviews, such as restricted methods, how the dimension of timelines factors into rapid reviews, and the involvement of knowledge users (eg, patient and public partners, healthcare providers, policy makers), are outlined. The paper presents a definition of a Cochrane rapid review and additional considerations for rapid reviews of effectiveness to enhance the efficiency of the review process. In conclusion, the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group’s updated guidance, complemented by examples, seeks to guide methodological decisions in the design and conduct of rapid reviews, facilitating timely decision making in healthcare.

Summary points

This article updates the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance published in 2020 to support rapid reviews of effectiveness in the context of urgent and high priority health questions

The updated guidance incorporates new knowledge and feedback from users of the interim guidance, with input from a broader group of methodologists specialising in rapid reviews, and it is both evidence informed and user informed and widely applicable to anyone conducting a rapid review

The update clarifies key concepts underpinning rapid reviews, provides a refined list of 24 recommendations, offers supporting examples, and provides best practice considerations and practical tips for teams to increase efficiencies

The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group will continue to promote research, monitor published literature, and update recommendations to facilitate timely, evidence based decision making in healthcare

Introduction

In recent years, the Cochrane Collaboration, a global leader in producing high quality systematic reviews and methodological guidance, has taken steps to support rapid reviews. In 2020, the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group published interim guidance on the conduct of rapid reviews of effectiveness produced within Cochrane and beyond. 1 Guidance was developed to focus on rapid reviews of health interventions to address urgent and high priority questions. The original guidance was informed by a suite of research, including a scoping review of the underlying evidence, 2 a proposed definition of a rapid review, 3 primary meta-epidemiological studies, 4 5 and a survey of Cochrane community members who prioritised the appropriateness of rapid review methods across stages during the conduct of reviews. 1 The original guidance offered 26 recommendations, with accompanying rationales on the steps and considerations for accelerating each part of the review process. Completion of the guidance coincided with the onset of the covid-19 pandemic, which was the catalyst for the increased number of Cochrane and non-Cochrane rapid reviews conducted and published since 2020. 6 The pandemic showed the importance of expedited systematically produced evidence synthesis to address many clinical, public health, and health policy and systems related questions.

In this article, we present an update on the interim Cochrane rapid review methods guidance, integrating new knowledge on the conduct of the reviews and feedback from users of the interim guidance. We clarify key concepts underpinning rapid reviews, include a refined list of recommendations, and provide some accompanying examples, supporting information, and links to additional resources to guide methods for those interested in the methodology of rapid reviews. The decision to update the interim guidance on Cochrane rapid review methods at this juncture was driven by several critical factors. The original guidance was expedited for release during the onset of the covid-19 pandemic, ensuring timely access for Cochrane’s network of reviewers and the broader research community grappling with urgent needs for evidence synthesis. Consequently, refinement of the recommendations was temporarily halted. As stated in our interim guidance, the increase in published rapid reviews, combined with our commitment to ongoing quality improvement efforts, underscored the need to align the guidance now with the evolving landscape of rapid review methodology after the pandemic. In addition, insights gleaned from an evaluation assessing the guidance’s real world use have pinpointed areas requiring enhancement, particularly in terms of user friendliness and practicality for authors of rapid reviews with varying levels of experience. 7

This update of the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance builds upon previously published interim guidance. 1 We have also integrated findings from a formal evaluation conducted to assess authors’ adherence to and understanding of the interim Cochrane guidance and the guidance’s comprehensibility, usability, and usefulness. A complete description of the evaluation is available elsewhere. 7 This evaluation included the text analysis of 128 rapid reviews (17 Cochrane and 111 non-Cochrane) and 20 in-depth qualitative interviews. Main findings suggested that many authors did not follow certain recommendations, such as the stepwise approach to study inclusion or peer review of search strategies. However, some recommendations, such as dual independent screening of abstracts or full texts, were exceeded. Common reasons for not adhering to the guidance included time constraints, unclear recommended approaches, or inapplicability to specific rapid reviews. Overall, the guidance was considered user friendly, but it was perceived as challenging to apply without experience of conducting systematic reviews. On this basis, we identified the need to change the wording of some recommendations and to clarify others, further keeping in mind that the guidance might be used by investigators with varied experience of systematic review and rapid review methods. 7 As such, this updated guidance clarifies some defining features of rapid reviews and additional aspects to consider for Cochrane rapid reviews.

We also scanned the literature for publications related to rapid review methodology published since the initial scoping review that underpinned our interim guidance in 2020. 2 To identify potentially relevant studies, we used the option for similar articles in PubMed for every article included in the initial scoping review. We also searched PubMed using a general keyword search based on our original scoping review search strategy. We limited searches from February 2019 (the previous search) to August 2022. A total of 841 citations were then screened and 87 articles assessed for relevancy in accordance with an initial scoping review of rapid review methods 2 (see subsection w1 in the supplementary file for list of studies). Although none met the original eligibility criteria, five studies provided further insights to the search recommendations. 8 9 10 11 12

Furthermore, we assembled a broader collaborative of rapid review methodologists beyond the coauthor group, who provided specific input on proposed modifications to the guidance. Led by the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group, this group of experts, including a patient and public partner, has produced a multipart series to further guide methods decisions in each step of the process for rapid reviews. 13 14 15 16 The series expands on and explains in further detail what this updated methods guidance recommends.

Cochrane methods guidance considerations

Cochrane defines a systematic review as using systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, critically appraise, extract, and analyse data from all relevant research. 17 Rapid reviews also use systematic and explicit methods to appraise, extract, and analyse data. By comparison, however, specific components of the systematic review process are either restricted or omitted or the scope is narrowed for rapid reviews, to provide an evidence synthesis product more quickly. Therefore, as rapid reviews might not include all relevant studies, they may be less comprehensive. As a result, the appropriateness of undertaking a rapid review needs to be considered carefully, with a strong justification provided for using this approach instead of a systematic review, including the rationale for using restricted methods. 18 General distinctions between systematic reviews and rapid reviews have been published previously. 19 20

In updating the interim guidance, it is also important to emphasise that Cochrane rapid reviews should be driven by the need for timely evidence for decision making purposes, including addressing urgent and emergent health issues and questions deemed high priority. Additionally, when conducting a rapid review, multiple methodological paths can be taken, and no “one size fits all” approaches can be applied. Rapid reviews are tailored and therefore can vary in scope and methodology depending on time and resources available, restricted methods used (or a combination of restrictions), and the types and levels of evidence included. Although this guidance is intended as best practice advice to determine the methodological way forward when conducting a Cochrane rapid review, not every restricted method that is recommended needs to be implemented. Teams may use stricter methods, if time and resources allow, and still call it a rapid review, as discussed below.

For this update we have clarified key defining features of rapid reviews relative to systematic reviews:

Restricted methods —To accelerate the review process, it is typical for rapid reviews to introduce methodological restrictions (shortcuts or abbreviated methods). Therefore, the reviews should be well reported, highlighting the restricted methods taken to accelerate the review, the potential biases these methods may have introduced, and other limitations of the evidence base.

Dimension of time —Despite the term “rapid” being used for these reviews, time is not the sole defining feature—although rapid reviews should be conducted in a short timeline. Timelines across the reviews vary, however, depending on several factors, including the complexity of the topic or the urgency of the decision making to meet timelines, which are often short out of necessity. Importantly, the notion that rapid reviews are simply systematic reviews done faster is misleading. A rapidly conducted systematic review would still be a systematic review if authors followed stringent systematic review methodology, such as methods proposed by Cochrane. 17 Consistent with our interim guidance, we continue to endorse that Cochrane rapid reviews should take no longer than six months.

Knowledge user involvement —As decision makers typically commission rapid reviews to address specific and pressing health questions, it is common for them to be involved in the process, given the urgent nature of these inquiries. However, other important knowledge users (eg, patient and public partners, healthcare providers, and policy makers) may also be involved in shaping the rapid review. In collaboration with funders and other knowledge users, the scope of the review should be narrowed down to answer a focused question.

Cochrane rapid reviews

We recommend the following definition for a Cochrane rapid review: “A rapid review is a type of evidence synthesis that brings together and summarises information from different research studies to produce evidence for people such as the public, healthcare providers, researchers, policy makers, and funders in a systematic, resource efficient manner. This is done by speeding up the ways we plan, do, and/or share the results of conventional structured (systematic) reviews, by simplifying or omitting a variety of methods that should be clearly defined by the authors.” This definition builds upon the original definition endorsed in the interim guidance, 16 and it was modified following the input of patient and public partners as part of a recent collaborative Priority Setting Partnership on rapid reviews. 3

Additional aspects also need to be considered when applying this guidance:

Guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness —Importantly, this guidance was developed within the context of Cochrane and focuses on rapid reviews concerning the effectiveness of health interventions, albeit it may be used for non-Cochrane reviews of effectiveness. This guidance has not yet been adapted beyond interventions of effectiveness to other question types relevant to rapid reviews (eg, rapid reviews of diagnostic test accuracy or screening, or rapid qualitative evidence synthesis) since specific review question types may pose unique methodological challenges. 21 Examples of other review question types and methodological considerations for rapid reviews can be found at https://methods.cochrane.org/rapidreviews/rr-methods-guidance/additional-methodological-considerations .

Experience of systematic reviews —Rapid review teams should include expertise from information specialists and have access to clinical experts and individuals with expert knowledge of systematic review methods, ideally available throughout the rapid review process to guide and advise on the strengths and limitations of abbreviated methods to minimise compromising validity.

Access to electronic databases and software —Rapid review teams must have adequate resources before embarking on the review. Required resources include access to electronic databases most relevant to the topic of rapid reviews (eg, Medline, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Embase, PsycInfo), reference management software (eg, Endnote, Zotero, RefWorks), screening software (eg, Rayyan, Covidence, DistillerSR), a virtual meeting platform (eg, Google meet, Zoom, MS Teams), and possibly other messaging applications used to facilitate timely communications and project management across the rapid review team (eg, Slack). We recommend that teams use live document platforms, as these enable real time collaboration, version control, and efficient information sharing, ultimately streamlining the review process. Some of these resources are freely available, whereas others require access through a library or academic institution or a paid user licence.

Cochrane rapid review recommendations

The Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group has issued an updated list of 24 recommendations for Cochrane rapid reviews as outlined in table 1 , with rationales and examples to support the recommendations provided in subsection w2 of the supplementary file. Rapid review teams may apply all or some of the methodological restrictions proposed in the recommendations, depending on the topic, timeframe, and resources.

Updated guidance on methods used in Cochrane rapid reviews of effectiveness

• View inline

Topic refinement—setting the research question

Recommendation 1: Involve knowledge users to set and refine the review question, eligibility criteria, and outcomes of interest, with consultation at various stages of the review

Knowledge users are individuals or groups responsible for, or affected by, health and healthcare related decisions that rapid reviews can inform. 22 23 The term knowledge user includes but is not limited to healthcare providers and their professional associations, policy makers, patients, caregivers, patient groups, government agencies, and the public. 24 By their very nature, rapid reviews often necessitate close and intensive collaboration between researchers and decision makers, including the organisations that commissioned them. 25 However, the involvement of key knowledge users (eg, patient and public partners, healthcare providers, and policy makers) is often limited, omitted, or not reported. 26 Although meaningful involvement requires time, resources, and advanced planning given the shortened timelines of rapid reviews, involving key knowledge users when possible can enhance the relevance and applicability of the review and should be encouraged. 27 28 The STARR (SelecTing Approaches for Rapid Reviews) tool aids authors in planning approaches to rapid reviews and obtaining structured input from users through targeted questions. 29 A recent publication provides further insight on ways to involve knowledge users in the co-development of rapid reviews (eg, planning, performance, and knowledge translation of the reviews). 13 Authors of Cochrane rapid reviews should be aware of Cochrane’s new framework for consumer (patient, carer, and public) engagement and involvement 30 and should leverage the Cochrane Consumer Network to identify potential patients, carers, and the public as knowledge users. 31

Recommendation 2: Develop a protocol that includes the review questions, description of the population, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and methods of conducting the review

As you would for a systematic review, it is important to develop a protocol for the rapid review that supports the principles of transparency and reproducibility. Protocols should include the review question or questions, using a question framework such as PICOs (population-intervention-comparator-outcomes), and detail the eligibility criteria and methods that will be used for searches, study selection, data extraction, risk of bias, and synthesis. The authors of Cochrane rapid reviews must submit a completed protocol to the Cochrane central editorial service ( [email protected] ), which will undergo editorial and methodological checks. Cochrane has a streamlined workflow and protocol template to accommodate rapid reviews across priority topics (see https://covidreviews.cochrane.org/resources ) . Non-Cochrane rapid reviews may use this template as a guide. If this template is not used, protocols should be reported to the extent possible following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). 32 If the time for peer review is limited, protocols should, at a minimum, be reviewed internally for consistency and accuracy. For transparency, authors should ensure public availability of their protocol through open access platforms (eg, PROSPERO, Open Science Framework).

Recommendation 3: Clearly define the eligibility criteria, including any restrictions or limits

To ensure rapid reviews are manageable and timely, various restrictions can be applied to eligibility criteria (eg, PICOs, timing, settings, date) (see recommendations 3.1 to 3.6). Such restrictions must be considered through discussions with the rapid review team and knowledge users.

Recommendation 3.1: Limit the number of interventions and comparators —So the review is focused and manageable, the number of interventions and comparators should be limited. Any such restrictions should not impact the decision making ability of knowledge users.

Recommendation 3.2: Limit the number of outcomes, focusing on those most important for decision making —When developing the protocol, focus on outcomes that are relevant for knowledge users and important for decision making. The recommendation is to rate outcomes by importance, with seven as a maximum 33 (although fewer may be better for a rapid review, depending on available time and resources). The list of outcomes may be restricted at any point throughout the conduct of the rapid review in consultation with knowledge users. Ideally, a core set of outcome measures would be available to inform decisions on outcome selection (eg, from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative 34 ). Outcomes will depend on the needs of knowledge users and should include outcomes for both potential benefits and potential harms.

Recommendation 3.3: Consider restricting the search date of the evidence base, with clinical or methodological justification provided —Although setting a date restriction is a pragmatic decision in some cases, this needs to be carefully considered for each topic. When conducting a rapid review, authors should consider the trade-offs (ie, the potential for less accuracy with the loss of studies versus workload) by different limits of a search date. 11 35 To make the right decision, authors should also assess each case individually because of variation in topics. When it is deemed important to avoid date restrictions, other approaches described in this guidance may be needed to deal with the potentially high number of search results. Regardless, rapid review teams should provide an appropriate justification if instituting date restrictions (see subsection w2 in the supplementary file). Besides, close communication with information specialists and clinical experts will help to set informed date limits. Other knowledge users may also provide insight on whether date limits are appropriate for each topic.

Recommendation 3.4: Limit the setting, with clinical or methodological justification provided —Limitations on the setting may be related to geographical areas or regions (eg, studies in the UK, low income and middle income countries, rural settings) and where the study is conducted, such as in the community or in a hospital. Any restrictions in the setting should be justified and relevant (see subsection w2 in the supplementary file) and should not impact the decision making ability of knowledge users.

Recommendation 3.5: Limit the publication language to English at study selection, with other languages added when relevant —Language restrictions during the initial search process are discouraged; we advise applying these restrictions during the study selection phase. Research suggests that excluding non-English publications from systematic reviews on clinical interventions has a minimal effect on overall conclusions and can be a viable methodological shortcut for rapid reviews. 4 We do not, however, recommend restricting to English only publications if previous knowledge suggests that studies relevant to the chosen rapid review topic may be published in languages other than English. Suppose, for example, rapid reviews are related to complementary and alternative medicine treatments. In that case, relevant studies in languages other than English would be expected, and studies published in these languages should be included in the rapid review. Ensure that any language limits are justified and clearly explained (see subsection w2 in the supplementary file).

Recommendation 3.6: Prioritise the inclusion of high quality study designs relevant to the review question or objective —Determine what levels of evidence to include and ensure the decision for this approach is well explained (see subsection w2 in the supplementary file). For example, if one or more well conducted systematic reviews has been done that address the question of the rapid review, including and updating these systematic reviews may be sufficient. Randomised controlled trials should be considered for effectiveness questions if no well conducted systematic reviews exist or do not address the PICOs sufficiently. In the absence of well conducted randomised controlled trials for effectiveness questions, or if time permits, or both, non-randomised studies may be considered. This implies that researchers should understand study designs and their characteristics, relationship to the review question or objective, and potential for bias. Importantly, systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials may not be available for new healthcare interventions—for example, no randomised controlled trials were available on covid-19 during the early era of the pandemic but emerged as the pandemic evolved. 36

Recommendation 4: Involve an information specialist to develop the search strategy, and consider search methods, resources, and search limits

Planning a search is integral to the overall preparation of a rapid review and should form part of protocol development. At minimum an information specialist such as a librarian should be consulted to select information sources (eg, bibliographic databases, type of supplementary searches) and provide feedback on the primary search strategy. 37 Information specialists can assist in selecting appropriate search methods and resources, defining search limits, designing and executing search strategies, and reporting the search methods. A preliminary or scoping search should be performed during the topic refinement stage and may help inform eligibility criteria. If the rapid review is being done by updating an existing systematic review, information specialists may use the original search strategy and adapt as necessary. Overall, the search process for a rapid review follows the same steps as for a systematic review; therefore, rapid review teams must be familiar with the general standards of systematic searching and reporting of searches. 38

Recommendation 5: Select a small number (but at least two) bibliographic databases that are likely to contain relevant literature

Rapid review teams should prioritise the most relevant information sources for the topic, the type of evidence required, and access to sources. We recommend a conventional approach of selecting at least two electronic bibliographic databases, dependent on the study type and topic most likely to retrieve relevant literature based on recent evidence. 12 35 39 In addition to electronic bibliographic databases, grey literature sources and targeted supplementary search methods may be used (see recommendation 7).

For rapid reviews focused on randomised controlled trials only, use a combination of two of the following databases (if you have access): Medline, CENTRAL, and Embase. 39

Additional considerations:

▪ For Cochrane rapid reviews of health interventions, where search strategies are always designed by information specialists and peer reviewed using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) statement 37 (see recommendation 6), we recommend using CENTRAL as the primary database. This is a highly concentrated source of reports of randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials. In many regions, CENTRAL is free through the Cochrane Library. 40 In addition, it is accessible to Cochrane members through the Cochrane Register of Studies Online ( https://crso.cochrane.org/ ). 41 Additional searches of Medline, such as through PubMed, and possibly Embase (if access is available) may be limited to the previous two months to capture the most recently published studies, as CENTRAL is currently only updated once a month. 9 39 42

▪ If CENTRAL and Embase are not available, searching Medline combined with an appropriate supplementary search (eg, a study register such as ClinicalTrials.gov, using the PubMed similar articles feature) can be considered, but this strategy might not be appropriate for all topics. 9 14

For other rapid reviews that include non-randomised studies, database selection should be carefully considered depending on available time and resources. In many cases, Medline will be the most relevant database, but this is not always the case. 10 43 Searching specialised databases such as CINAHL, PsycInfo, and the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), may be necessary for specialised review topics (eg, CINAHL for rapid reviews related to nursing care, PsycInfo for rapid reviews related to mental health, or ERIC for rapid reviews related to educational interventions); see subsection w2 in the supplementary file.

Recommendation 6: Use the PRESS checklist to peer review the primary search strategy

The primary search strategy should be peer reviewed using the PRESS checklist when possible. 37 If the use of PRESS is not possible, at a minimum the search strategies should be double checked for typographical or spelling errors, missed keywords, and correct use of Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT). Evidence suggests that the absence of peer review of the search strategy often results in many missed studies, and unless captured in accompanying supplementary searches, these studies would not appear in the published rapid review. 44

Recommendation 7: Assess the need for grey literature and supplemental searching. Justify the sources to be searched

For rapid reviews, we recommend limiting grey literature and supplemental searches. For some topics, however, a search of grey literature may be more important than a search of conventional databases. If warranted, consider limiting supplemental searches to clinical trial registries and review of reference lists in included studies or similar articles searches to identify potentially relevant studies (see subsection w2 in the supplementary file file). More in-depth best practice suggestions on searching for rapid reviews are available. 14 45

Study selection—title and abstract and full text screening

Recommendation 8: Employ piloting exercises at abstract and full text screening levels to allow team members to test the study selection process on a selected sample of records to ensure a consistent approach to screening

Before the start of screening, a pilot exercise should be conducted using a purposive selection of records (eg, 50-100 records that reflect the complexity of the topic) assessed by the entire team of screeners to test and revise the screening forms and adapt the eligibility criteria, if necessary. This pilot exercise also allows a discussion of unclear abstracts and identification of potential difficulties in the study selection process. To ensure a consistent approach to screening is used across the entire team, all screeners should use a title and abstract screening form followed by a full text screening form. These forms should include details on the eligibility criteria with examples and can be phrased as screening questions. The screening forms should be adapted after discussions among the team, if necessary.

Recommendation 9: Conduct dual and independent screening of a proportion of records, assess reviewer agreement, and proceed with single screening if agreement is good

Generally, we recommend that two reviewers should screen at least 20% of the records, check the level of agreement, and discuss any discrepancies. Teams can proceed with single screening if agreement is high (eg, κ is ≥0.8). 46 47 If agreement is low, the screening team should proceed with dual reviewer screening until a better agreement has been achieved. The suggestion of 20% is based on our experience and is therefore not evidence based. The proportion may differ depending on the number of records to be screened, available resources, complexity of the review topic, and reviewers’ experience. We recommend the same approach for full text screening (see subsection w2 in the supplementary file). If resources allow, one person could check all excluded full texts to ensure no relevant study was unintentionally excluded. Further details on this process are available elsewhere. 15

If a search yields a small number of records, such as a few hundred citations, consider dual, independent screening, if it is feasible. Although screening with only one reviewer for each record may be a practical solution for certain rapid reviews, we do not recommend this for Cochrane rapid reviews. Findings from two studies indicate that single screening of the titles and abstracts is not equivalent to dual screening, as more studies are missed. 5 48 Nonetheless, forthcoming advances in automation (eg, active machine learning) 49 50 and crowdsourcing 8 51 have the potential to reduce screening time when conducting rapid reviews.

Recommendation 10: Limit data extraction to only the most important data fields relevant to address the review question

No minimum set of data extraction items exists for study characteristics and outcome data. For a rapid review, however, extraction should be limited to only the most important data fields. For example, outcome data should only be extracted for those outcomes deemed as most relevant for decision making (see recommendation 3.2).

Recommendation 11: For data extraction, employ a piloting exercise to ensure all team members perform it consistently and correctly

We recommend using a form for data extraction (eg, a table or spreadsheet) and involving all reviewers in a data extraction pilot test using the same studies (at least two). This should help to identify misunderstandings early on and should reduce disagreements during the data verification step (see recommendation 12). The form should also help in deciding which study characteristics and outcome data should be extracted using concise descriptions of participant, intervention, comparator characteristics, and outcomes assessed (see recommendation 10).

Recommendation 12: Have one person extract the data, and for critical data that can affect the results or conclusions, have a second person verify the data for accuracy and completeness

We recommend that one person should extract the data for rapid reviews, with a second person verifying the key data (eg, definitions of outcomes, outcome data) for completeness and correctness to ensure integrity of the review. The second reviewer will also need to check the full texts. Any disagreements should be resolved through discussion and consensus between reviewers, involving a third reviewer if agreement cannot be reached (see subsection w2 in the supplementary file). If time and resources allow, a second person should verify the remaining data, such as characteristics of the study.

Recommendation 13: When available, extract data directly from existing systematic reviews rather than from primary studies

If good quality systematic reviews are included in the rapid review, consider extracting data directly from the systematic review. According to a case study, this approach saved time and did not alter the review results. 52 However, extracting data directly from a systematic review requires good reporting of the data included in the review. As stated in recommendation 11, a second person should check the critical data extracted from the systematic review for completeness and correctness (see subsection w2 of the supplementary file).

Risk of bias assessment

We discourage omitting the risk of bias assessment entirely, as it informs the interpretation of the results.

Recommendation 14: Use validated and study design specific tools to assess the risk of bias of the included studies

To effectively manage the risk of bias assessments, it is important to use validated assessment tools specific to the study design(s) included in the rapid review. For example, for Cochrane rapid reviews, versions 1 and 2 of the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 1 and RoB 2, respectively) 53 54 should be used for randomised controlled trials. Permitting both outcome level risk of bias (RoB 2) and domain level risk of bias (RoB 1) assessments in rapid reviews is suggested for practical purposes. RoB 1 assessments are generally quicker and require fewer resources than RoB 2 assessments at the outcome level. However, different rapid reviews may require different levels of detail and granularity in the risk of bias assessment that may depend on the specific characteristics of the review, such as the complexity of the interventions, type of outcomes, and available data. Allowing either approach ensures an efficient use of available resources while maintaining the quality of the review.

For non-randomised interventional studies, the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomised Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) 55 should be used. AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) 56 or ROBIS 57 may be used to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews.

Recommendation 15: Focus the risk of bias assessment at least on the most important outcomes

When using risk of bias tools with questions that rate the risk at an outcome level (not study level), such as RoB 2, limit the risk of bias ratings to the outcomes important for decision making (see recommendation 3.2).

Recommendation 16: Have one person perform the risk of bias assessment, with a second person verifying the judgements

The recommended approach to risk of bias assessment involves one reviewer performing the assessment, and another reviewer verifying the judgements. If only a small number of studies are eligible for inclusion, consider dual, independent risk of bias assessments for key outcomes, if feasible. In preparation, it may be helpful for all involved in risk of bias assessment to assess a small number of studies, such as two or three, concurrently and discuss the corresponding judgements so that any discrepancies may be identified and resolved (see subsection w2 in the supplementary file).

Teams involved in rapid reviews need to develop an appropriate analysis plan, which should be included in the protocol (see recommendation 2).

Recommendation 17: Provide a descriptive summary of the included studies

Providing a descriptive summary of the included studies at the outset of the synthesis stage helps to confirm if the studies are similar and reliable enough to synthesise and if it is possible to pool results. “Similar” studies means that they have similar PICOs, and, ideally, study designs.

Recommendation 18: Perform a synthesis of the findings

For rapid reviews that only include primary studies, reviewers need to decide how to group and tabulate data based on the review question, the type of data included, and what was planned for in the protocol, to the extent possible. Beyond a simple descriptive summary, a narrative interpretation of the evidence from multiple studies should be conducted for all rapid reviews. Reviewers should organise the synthesis around the elements of the PICO question framework, with findings grouped by key questions, comparisons, interventions, and outcomes. If a meta-analysis is possible, a descriptive summary of the body of evidence contributing to the meta-analysis is needed to interpret the collective evidence fully. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) reporting guidelines should be considered to promote transparency of narrative reporting of evidence synthesis. 58

Recommendation 19: Consider a meta-analysis if appropriate and resources permit

If data are sufficient to consider a meta-analysis, the standards for a systematic review equally apply to a rapid review; meta-analysis will depend on the type of data and information provided in the individual studies. It is important to involve a statistician familiar with systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The depth and details of analysis will vary depending on the volume and type of included studies.

Recommendation 20: Consider how to synthesise evidence when including one systematic review or more

When including systematic reviews in a rapid review, synthesis may involve adding primary studies to an existing meta-analysis or narrative synthesis from the systematic review. If more than one systematic review is included, the overlap of primary studies must be identified. A formal study of overlap (eg, corrected covered area 59 ) does not need to be undertaken for a rapid review. Instead, a cursory examination of overlap may be presented in tabular form to identify all included systematic reviews with the relevant primary studies to explore why reviews agree or disagree on important findings. A publication on synthesis for rapid reviews will be forthcoming as part of the Rapid Reviews Methods Series led by the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group.

Certainty of the evidence

Recommendation 21: Use the GRADE approach to assess certainty of evidence if time and resources allow

Cochrane Reviews incorporate the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for rating the certainty of evidence 60 as it is the established benchmark for use in guideline development. Several examples have been published where the GRADE approach has been used for rapid reviews. 61 62 63 We therefore recommend fully implementing GRADE for both Cochrane and non-Cochrane rapid reviews if time and resources allow. We also recommend using GRADEpro, an open access software tool for rating certainty of evidence in evidence syntheses to apply GRADE. 64 Reviewers should always present results in a summary of findings table when rating certainty of evidence and use explanatory footnotes to outline reasons for uprating or downrating judgements.

Recommendation 22: Limit the certainty of evidence ratings to the main intervention and comparator and focus on critical outcomes

If time and other resources do not permit the full implementation of GRADE, we recommend that reviewers limit certainty of evidence ratings to the main intervention and comparator and focus on critical outcomes of benefits and harms. See recommendation 3.2 on the selection of critical outcomes. 33 60 The approach chosen should, in any case, be transparent, and any limitations acknowledged.

Recommendation 23: Have one person complete the GRADE assessment, with a second person to verify the assessment

To accelerate GRADE application, we recommend a single reviewer rating, and verification of all decisions (and footnoted rationales) by a second reviewer (see subsection w2 in the supplementary file). If effect estimates of a well conducted systematic review, meta-analysis, or network meta-analysis are incorporated to address parts of a key question of the rapid review, we advise using existing certainty of evidence grades from such systematic reviews. 16 Further details on assessing the certainty of evidence for rapid reviews are available. 16

Other best practice considerations

Recommendation 24: Provide a clear description of the selected rapid review approach, which includes outlining the restricted methods used. Additionally, discuss the potential limitations of these chosen methods and how they may influence the interpretation of the research findings

Describing the restricted methods used and pinpointing potential sources of bias or uncertainty in the findings resulting from methodological restrictions, enables end users to better assess the validity and reliability of the rapid review. This includes determining whether the methods were appropriate for the specific research question, studied population, and context being investigated. Additionally, this process serves to put the results in perspective, given the restrictions imposed by the methods of rapid reviews, helping to limit overgeneralisation of results or unwarranted conclusions.

Rapid reviews involve an iterative process

Sometimes, changes to the review protocol are necessary once a rapid review has started. For example, search variables may be expanded or limited depending on what the search yields, or eligibility criteria may need to be refined after the pilot screening. Therefore, the rapid review process should allow for post hoc changes to the protocol. Substantial changes should be discussed with the knowledge users involved, and any amendments should be tracked and reported in the rapid review. Moreover, authors should seek feedback from the knowledge users throughout the process to ensure the review meets their needs.

Incorporate the use of systematic review software to streamline the process

We strongly encourage using software to help produce rapid reviews to improve the efficiency of screening, tracking, and documentation, and to reduce human error. Online systematic review software enhances collaboration by allowing real time project management and multiuser participation across geographical boundaries. Importantly, the software enables members of the rapid review team to work in parallel across all stages of the review, and it provides a fully transparent process. It also facilitates the incorporation of protocol amendments and other post hoc changes that may be needed during the conduct of a rapid review. The use of software also increases efficiency through the automated collation of the screening results (inclusions and exclusions). Those undertaking rapid reviews and other types of syntheses should look for ways to harness innovation, using software and adopting automation tools that reliably assist in streamlining stages of a review’s conduct. One such example is Cochrane Crowd, which uses a machine learning platform and crowdsourcing to identify randomised controlled trials 8 (for examples, see SR ToolBox at http://systematicreviewtools.com/ ).

Apply appropriate reporting guidelines

Importantly, given the methodological modifications inherent to rapid reviews, authors must be transparent in reporting their methods and results. See the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-P) for reporting of rapid review protocols 32 and PRIMSA-S for searches. 38 Although an extension to PRISMA for rapid reviews is ongoing, 65 until it is officially completed we suggest authors use the general PRISMA statement 66 to the extent possible, and adapt it accordingly.

This updated guidance on methods used in Cochrane rapid reviews of effectiveness has the potential to benefit many producers and users of this review type. Although this guidance is heavily posited within the Cochrane landscape, the recommended methods apply widely to anyone conducting a rapid review. This guidance builds upon our interim guidance and is based on an evaluation of the recommendations used in real time, the expertise of a broader group of experts in rapid reviews within and external to Cochrane, and a scan of the literature for additional publications on rapid review methods since our recommendations were first published. Therefore, the recommendations are both evidence informed and user informed.

Noteworthy changes to the updated recommendations include modifications to search sources for both Cochrane and non-Cochrane rapid reviews of randomised controlled trials and for study selection at both the title and abstract and the full text screening stages, where the process has been simplified. Subsection w3 in the supplementary file provides a comparison between the interim and updated recommendations. In addition, a new section on certainty of evidence has been added as a separate element from the synthesis of results. Using appropriate reporting guidance for the protocol, search strategies and review itself are also emphasised. Importantly, further explanations and available examples are included to help clarify considerations and recommendations for methods in rapid reviews. Some additional practical tips for rapid review teams to increase efficiencies in the review process are also provided.

Although a multipronged approach, where more than one method restriction is combined, may increase timely production of reviews, users of this guidance can still label a review as a rapid review even if some of the recommendations are not followed. The key is that the pros and cons of each methodological restriction used in a rapid review should be weighed against the scope and complexity of the review topic and other circumstances of the review, including the timeline, number of team members involved at various stages of the review and their level of expertise, along with the potential for introducing bias. Rapid review teams therefore need expertise in systematic review methods to provide balanced methodological judgements when deciding which methods restrictions to use and how this might impact the findings of a particular review.

It is important to clarify the distinction between recommendations targeting Cochrane rapid reviews and those with a more general applicability. Some recommendations are tailored to Cochrane rapid reviews because they align with Cochrane’s standards, procedures, and objectives that do not apply to all contexts of rapid reviews. On the one hand, the guidance ensures that Cochrane rapid reviews consistently meet the organisation’s rigorous quality standards. On the other hand, certain recommendations have broader applicability across all methodologies and contexts of rapid reviews. These recommendations encompass fundamental principles and best practices that are not exclusive to Cochrane but are relevant for all rapid reviews of effectiveness. The recommendations address core aspects of conducting rapid reviews, such as the importance of involving knowledge users, use of protocols, transparency, and documentation, which are essential regardless of the specific review framework. Recognising that the methodology of rapid reviews is an evolving discipline with diverse applications, the guidance aims to balance between providing Cochrane specific direction and accommodating the broader community involved in rapid reviews. This approach acknowledges the need for flexibility and adaptability, enabling the authors of rapid reviews to apply relevant guidance while considering their specific requirements and objectives.

Our approach to the methods of rapid reviews stands out from existing guidance because it was crafted explicitly within the Cochrane context, concentrating on rapid reviews of interventions. In contrast, other guides for rapid reviews have targeted health policy and systems research, public health, or rapid guideline development during public health emergencies. 67 68 69 What also distinguishes our guidance is its sharp focus on the conduct of rapid reviews rather than planning, packaging, or dissemination. Notably, our recommendations for each step of the review process are specific, setting the guidance apart from others that typically offer a more general overview of common practices in rapid reviews. It is also worth noting that Cochrane rapid reviews are explicitly designed to address urgent and high priority questions requested by decision makers, aligning with a specific mandate that not all other guides necessitate. Although these other guides are also evidence informed and we encourage their use, our guide is uniquely grounded in empirical evidence evaluating methods of rapid reviews, 1 2 further enriched by expert input 13 14 15 16 and feedback from a formal evaluation of its real world use. 7

Although not all stages of a rapid review had corresponding evidence to inform the updated recommendation, as stated previously, we know that many established steps in the systematic review process are also based on evidence that is limited, outdated, or not available. Therefore, any future methodological research that informs rapid reviews will also be beneficial for systematic reviews. Future research should examine ways to adapt this guidance beyond interventions of effectiveness to other review question types, such as rapid reviews of diagnostic test accuracy or screening. Developing criteria for determining the appropriateness of undertaking rapid reviews versus systematic reviews or living systematic reviews would also be of value.

Optimising the review process, including study selection, data extraction, and synthesis of results, enables quicker production of rapid reviews. A variety of software tools, involving extraction of metadata, automation, screening software, and machine learning, have the potential to contribute to this optimisation. These tools aim to help streamline the review process, enhance transparency and reproducibility, and minimise reviewer bias. Collaboration software and live documents also facilitate real time exchanges, keeping all stakeholders in alignment throughout the process. Looking to the future, the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) will likely further advance the overall process for both rapid reviews and systematic reviews by providing intelligent assisted solutions to potentially speed up and increase efficiency of many review steps. AI may also reduce errors, improve accuracy, and improve repeatability and reproducibility of rapid reviews.

Overall, the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers updated, actionable recommendations to support the conduct of rapid reviews when the need for evidence is urgent. Because best practice is still limited by the lack of currently available evidence for some shortcuts used for rapid review methods, the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group will continue to promote research to close these gaps, monitor the published literature as additional abbreviated methods are formally evaluated, and update these recommendations as needed. Ultimately, we hope that uptake of this guidance will lead to more useful, robust, and rigorous rapid reviews, thus facilitating timely, evidence based decision making in healthcare.

Conclusions

This article offers updated guidance composed of 24 recommendations on methods for conducting rapid reviews of effectiveness produced within Cochrane and beyond to address urgent and high priority questions often requested by decision makers. The guidance aims to encourage the thoughtful use of best practices that are both user informed and evidence informed when applying abbreviated systematic review methods to rapid reviews.

Ethics statements

Ethical approval.

Not required.

Acknowledgments

We thank the collaborators who contributed to this updated guidance, and Piotr Ratajczak who updated the literature scan for newly published studies. We also thank our colleagues who worked with the convenors of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group to create a series of articles in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. These articles give more details about the guidance we recommend in the current article. As such, we want to recognise these colleagues for their expertise in suggesting changes to the guidance: Andrea Tricco, Maureen Smith, Danielle Pollock, Irma Klerings, Shannon Robalino, Andrew Booth, Camila Micaela Escobar-Liquitay, Isolde Sommer, Siw Waffenschmidt, Anna Noel-Storr, Livia Puljak, Leila Kahwati, Meera Viswanathan, Amir Qaseem, Eli Akl, Holger Schuenemann, Jane Noyes, Catherine Houghton, Fiona Campbell, Anthea Sutton, Hanan Khalil, Lisa Affengruber, Miriam Van der Maten, James Thomas, Chris Mavergames, and René Spijker. In addition, a special thank you to Irma Klerings and Anna Noel-Storr for their specific review of the search related recommendations. We would also like to thank members of the Cochrane Methods Executive for reviewing and providing comments.

Contributors: CG, CH, MT, GG, BNS, DD, CK, UG, and VJK contributed to the conceptualisation of this paper. CG wrote the first draft of the manuscript and revised the manuscript with input from CH, MT, GG, BNS, DD, CK, UG, and VJK. All authors read and approved the final version. CG is the guarantor and attests that all authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

Funding: This work was funded in part by Cochrane and in-kind support provided by Cochrane Austria, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria. The funder had no role in the development of this guidance, writing of the report, or decision to submit the article for publication.

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from Cochrane for the submitted work. Certain methods studies upon which some of the recommendations are based have been carried out by authors of this guidance (GG, BNS, CH, CG, VJK, and CK). UG, BNS, and MT planned and carried out the evaluation study of the interim rapid review methods guidance.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

• Garritty C ,
• Gartlehner G ,
• Nussbaumer-Streit B ,
• Michaud A ,
• Klerings I ,
• Dobrescu AI ,
• Affengruber L ,
• Titscher V ,
• ↵ COVID-END. COVID-19 Evidence Network to Support Decisionmaking. 2021. www.mcmasterforum.org/networks/covidend
• Griebler U ,
• Dobrescu A ,
• Ledinger D ,
• Noel-Storr A ,
• Gartlehner G
• Noel-Storr AH ,
• Wisniewski S ,
• Frandsen TF ,
• Eriksen MB ,
• Hammer DMG ,
• Christensen JB
• Tricco AC ,
• Pollock D ,
• Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group
• Robalino S ,
• ↵ Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook .
• Barker TH ,
• Ghassemi M ,
• Khangura S ,
• Cushman R ,
• Grimshaw J ,
• Arevalo-Rodriguez I ,
• Steingart KR ,
• ↵ Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Knowledge user engagement: Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2016. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/49505.html
• Concannon TW ,
• Saunders T ,
• ↵ Cottrell E, Whitlock E, Kato E, et al. Defining the Benefits of Stakeholder Engagement in Systematic Reviews. Rockville (MD). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2014, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK196180/ , accessed 19 March 2022.
• Hartling L ,
• Guise J-M ,
• Badillo I ,
• Majnemer A ,
• ↵ Involvement in COVID-19 rapid evidence synthesis: training and supporting willing, enthusiastic patient/public partners [webinar]. Evidence Synthesis Ireland. 2022. https://youtu.be/v50bie88Eq4
• Kaltenthaler E ,
• Martyn-St James M ,
• ↵ Cochrane Consumer Network. Cochrane consumer engagement and involvement framework to 2027. https://consumers.cochrane.org/news/cochrane-consumer-engagement-and-involvement-framework-2027 (accessed 14 January 2023)
• Cochrane Consumer Network
• Shamseer L ,
• PRISMA-P Group
• Guyatt GH ,
• Williamson PR
• Marshall IJ ,
• Marshall R ,
• Wallace BC ,
• Brassey J ,
• Palmer JC ,
• McGowan J ,
• Sampson M ,
• Salzwedel DM ,
• Foerster V ,
• Rethlefsen ML ,
• Kirtley S ,
• Waffenschmidt S ,
• PRISMA-S Group
• ↵ Cochrane. Access options for the Cochrane Library. 2023. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/help/access#:~:text=Cochrane%20and%20Wiley%20provide%20one,Library%20in%20over%20100%20countries
• Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO)
• ↵ Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S, et al. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston MS, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-04-technical-supplement-searching-and-selecting-studies
• Mierzwinski-Urban M
• Britten N ,
• Knelangen M ,
• Iliriani K ,
• James MM-S ,
• Kaltenthaler E
• Higgins JPT ,
• Altman DG ,
• Gøtzsche PC ,
• Cochrane Bias Methods Group ,
• Cochrane Statistical Methods Group
• Sterne JAC ,
• Savović J ,
• Sterne JA ,
• Hernán MA ,
• Reeves BC ,
• Whiting P ,
• ROBIS group
• Campbell M ,
• McKenzie JE ,
• Hennessy EA ,
• ↵ Schünemann H, Brojek J, Guyatt G, et al, editors. GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. The GRADE Working Group. 2013. https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html (accessed 5 May 2020)
• Iannone P ,
• Castellini G ,
• Coclite D ,
• Karkhaneh M ,
• Morgan RL ,
• Rooney AA ,
• ↵ McMaster University and Evidence Prime. GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool [Software]. www.gradepro.org
• Stevens A ,
• Bossuyt PM ,
• ↵ Dobbins M. Steps for conducting a rapid review. National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools, McMaster University, 2017;25.
• ↵ Tricco AC, Langlois EV, Straus SE, et al. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide. 2017. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/258698/1/9789241512763-eng.pdf (accessed 13 July 2019)
• Garritty CM ,
• Norris SL ,

• En español – ExME
• Em português – EME

Rapid Reviews: the easier and speedier way to evaluate papers, but with some limitations

Posted on 24th September 2020 by Georgina Ford

When it comes to reviewing literature there are many different strategies. These vary in their complexity and timescale. As students, the type we are most likely to be able to perform is the rapid review – but what exactly does this entail?

Systematic Reviews

Systematic reviews are the long, detailed papers we commonly have to read. They bring together evidence from sometimes hundreds of different sources to identify corroborating and conflicting results, synthesise data and inform areas for future research. They take up to a year or more to produce with 2 or more people involved.

Rapid Reviews

A rapid review uses shortcuts in the systematic review process, but should still be rigorous and they need to ask a very focused question. You can also have updates of existing reviews incorporating data published since the previous review.

Pros and Cons

Pros: They take much less time to produce and the workload is suitable for a smaller number of reviewers than a full systematic review, hence their suitability for students. They still need a rigorous search method to identify new data to include, however, concessions in breadth and depth of evaluation are made.

Cons: Taking methodological shortcuts does leave rapid reviews more vulnerable to bias and errors. For example, the search for existing studies may be less comprehensive. It can be difficult to access all the literature if it is restricted or in a different language, exposing it to publication bias . The review should include details of these concessions and challenges to give context to any of the claims made.

The writing process

The process of performing a rapid review is laid out below:

• THE LITERATURE SEARCH •Ask a focused question. Try using the PICO method (Population/Intervention/Comparison/Outcome). •Identify the last systematic review of data answering your question. •Perform a literature search for relevant papers written since the last review, using different iterations, spellings, and phrases. •Use limits on your search to narrow down to papers in your timeframe, language, and study design. •If required, repeat with other search databases.
• STREAMLINING STUDIES •Go through each paper you have identified and read their abstracts. •Discard those that are not the required study design or sufficiently relevant to your question. •Check you can access all of the remaining studies. •The process up to now should have left you with a manageable number of studies.
• REVIEW THE DATA •Read the full articles in detail, as many times as you have to. Make notes on them highlighting their methods, and key similarities and differences to the other papers. •Organise similar studies so they are discussed together and compared. •Write a clear conclusions paragraph. Explore any differences between the conclusions you draw and the results of the previous systematic review. Think about why any differences may have occurred, for example changes of policy.
• REVIEW YOUR PROCESS •Make sure to include a paragraph detailing your search criteria and process. •Your methods and reasons for them should be clearly outlined. We have said that rapid reviews can be shorter and less in-depth but the shortcuts you have taken must be explained. •Write about what you think the limitations of your methods are. •In a separate paragraph, usually at the end, you should discuss what the limitations of the studies themselves are and how these may have affected your conclusions. •It can be easier to leave writing your abstract until the very end, as it needs to be clear and concise. Once you have analysed all of your data and come to your conclusions it is far easier to summarise your work than at the beginning. Starting is always the hardest part, and abstracts are not easy to write anyway.

Here are some examples of published rapid reviews that may help you, particularly look at how they have detailed their methods and search strategies:

Hu et al., (2016): Cisplatin for testicular germ cell tumors: a rapid review

Kreindler et al., (2016): Patient characteristics associated with longer emergency department stay: a rapid review

With the current COVID-19 pandemic, the need for evidence is more urgent, making rapid reviews a very popular choice. One example from Public Health Scotland is: Rapid Review of the literature: Assessing the infection prevention and control measures for the prevention and management of COVID-19 in healthcare settings

An article by Grant and Booth (2009) highlights the key differences between different review types and was very helpful for writing this blog.

References (pdf)

Feature image by  Gerd Altmann  from  Pixabay  

Georgina Ford

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Subscribe to our newsletter

You will receive our monthly newsletter and free access to Trip Premium.

Related Articles

Risk Communication in Public Health

Learn why effective risk communication in public health matters and where you can get started in learning how to better communicate research evidence.

Estrogen synthesis in the brain and neural function

Neurology and endocrinology are today closer than ever in explaining important clinical processes. This blog from Davide aims to provide an extensive overview of the roles played by brain-derived estrogen in neural function.

Just a simple fall? A literature review of paramedics’ assessment of older adults who fall and are referred to community care services

This blog presents the abstract of a literature review and critical appraisal of paramedics’ assessment of older adults who fall and are referred to community care services.

About Systematic Reviews

The Difference Between a Rapid Review vs Systematic Review

Automate every stage of your literature review to produce evidence-based research faster and more accurately.

Health policymakers and system implementers are often faced with situations that require critical decisions to be made within the shortest time possible. This makes systematic reviews less practical. Fortunately, rapid review methods are helping to streamline this process. In addition to rapid reviews, there are several other types of review methods that can help move the review and approval process along. Understanding the differences between a peer review vs systematic review and an integrative review vs systematic review is essential to making the right choice for your research. Each of these types of reviews comes with its own advantages and drawbacks. The use of a review type depends on the research needs of the author and the place-time attributes of the intended research.

Systematic Review

A systematic review employs reproducible, analytical approaches to identify, collect, choose, and critically evaluate data from multiple studies that can be included in a scientific review. If you are looking for a systematic review example , you can find all you need to know in the link.

A systematic review seeks to answer a specific predefined research question that should be carefully formulated to guide the review. Mostly the PICO model is used to formulate a concise research question. The research question helps in determining the eligibility criteria used. The review type tells the researcher how to gather information from specified research, and present findings.

Learn More About DistillerSR

(Article continues below)

Rapid Review

A rapid review is the synthesis of evidence designed to provide more timely data for speedy decision-making. Compared to a systematic review, a rapid review takes a much shorter time to complete. Although the approaches used in rapid reviews vary greatly, they usually take less than five weeks. With rapid reviews, there are short deadlines because they omit several phases of the review process that are essential in systematic reviews. The time-decompression aspect of rapid reviews makes them an attractive alternative.

A rapid review is mostly used to:

• explore a new or developing research topic
• update a previous review, or
• evaluate a critical topic

It’s also used to reevaluate existing facts about a policy or practice that was based on systematic-review methods. In rapid reviews, several methods are used to simplify or omit some of the processes used in systematic reviews, including reducing databases, allocating one reviewer for each review stage, omitting or minimizing the use of gray literature (information produced outside traditional publishing and distribution channels), and narrowing the scope of the review.

In terms of impartiality, rapid reviews may be more prone to bias than systematic reviews. The use of several methods stated above may lead to exclusion of studies that may have been impactful in developing a consistent conclusion. The use of these methods develops a certain scope, which constraints the results of a rapid review of that specific scope. However, the extent of this restriction is still unknown. Although many health policymakers and system implementers have embraced rapid reviews, some stakeholders in academia have expressed their reservations, arguing that rapid reviews are “quick and dirty”. But this shouldn’t negate their usefulness, as there is a time and place where a rapid review is exactly what’s needed.

3 Reasons to Connect

• Library Catalogue

Systematic, scoping, and rapid reviews: An overview

What is evidence synthesis.

Evidence synthesis is "the contextualization and integration of research findings of individual research studies within the larger body of knowledge on the topic. A synthesis must be reproducible and transparent in its methods, using quantitative and/or qualitative methods" ( CIHR ). Systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and rapid reviews are all forms of evidence synthesis.

What review is right for you?

The Right Review tool might help guide your choice of an evidence synthesis method.

You can get a sense of the wide array of review types on our  Literature Reviews for Graduate Students  guide.

Below, you'll find a brief comparison of three common types of evidence synthesis: systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and rapid reviews. 

Systematic review

"A systematic review attempts to identify, appraise and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a given research question. Researchers conducting systematic reviews use explicit methods aimed at minimizing bias in order to produce more reliable findings that can be used to inform decision making." ( Cochrane )

Scoping review

"A scoping review or scoping study is a form of knowledge synthesis that addresses an exploratory research question aimed at mapping key concepts, types of evidence, and gaps in research related to a defined area or field by systematically searching, selecting, and synthesizing existing knowledge" ( Colquhoun et al. )

Rapid review

"Rapid reviews are a form of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a timely manner" ( Tricco et al. )

 When to use a systematic review

The aim is to address a focused research question with narrow parameters.

 When to use a scoping review

The aim is to summarize "a range of evidence in order to convey the breadth and depth of a field." ( Levac, Colquhoun, & O'Brien ) 

 When to use a rapid review

The aim is to conduct a rigorous review with limited time and/or resources.

 Time needed for systematic reviews 

9 to 18 months

  Time: scoping reviews

  time: rapid reviews.

1 to 6 months

 Reporting guidelines for systematic reviews

  reporting guidelines: scoping reviews,   reporting guidelines: rapid reviews.

PRISMA-RR ( under development since 2018); one possibility is to adapt  PRISMA  guidelines to the constraints of your project

  Frameworks/ guidance for systematic reviews

• Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2022)
• Joanna Briggs Institute (2020)
• Campbell Collaboration

 Frameworks/ guidance: scoping reviews

• Cochrane Training: Scoping reviews video series (2017)
• Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology ( Levac , Colquhoun , & O'Brien, 2010)

  Frameworks/ guidance: rapid reviews

• Rapid Review Guidebook ( NCCMT , 2017)
• Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: A practical guide (WHO, 2017)

 Search strategy for systematic reviews

Comprehensive searches across a range of resources with explicit strategies; typically includes grey literature

  Search strategy: scoping reviews 

  search strategy: rapid reviews.

As comprehensive as time and/or resource constraints permit  

 Considerations for systematic reviews

Requires at least three team members, including expertise in the research area, systematic review methods, statistical analysis, and information retrieval; requires a focused question; involves critical appraisal.

  Considerations: scoping reviews 

Requires at least three team members, including expertise in the research area, scoping review methods, and information retrieval; requires an exploratory question; involves no critical appraisal.

  Considerations: rapid reviews

Can be done by an individual researcher or a research team; due to time and/or resource constraints, rapid reviews are less comprehensive and more prone to bias than systematic and scoping reviews; should provide explanations for shortcuts and subsequent limitations.

This page was adapted from the What's in a Name? comparison chart created by Library Services, Unity Health Toronto. Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 .

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Introduction to Rapid Reviews

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of rapid reviews increased and became a popular method of conducting a rigorous literature review, using systematic review methodology in a shorter time frame. This type of review helps synthesize the available evidence in a narrative descriptive format and can be done at a faster pace than a full systematic review. The introductory class will discuss what research questions are best suited for a rapid review, best practices for their conduct, and review the required methodological steps on how to conduct an effective rapid review. 

Upcoming Sessions

Related online tutorials.

• How to Use the Cochrane Library
• NLM Resources for Nurses: Drug Info
• NLM Resources for Nurses: Patient Education
• NLM Resources For Nurses: Research
• Using PubMed in Evidence-Based Practice

Other Related Content

• Training Program
• Bibliometrics & Research Assessment Symposium 2020

Systematic Versus Rapid Versus Scoping Reviews

• First Online: 23 September 2021

Cite this protocol

• Zachary Bouck 4 , 5 ,
• Sharon E. Straus 5 , 6 , 7 &
• Andrea C. Tricco 4 , 5 , 7 , 8  

Part of the book series: Methods in Molecular Biology ((MIMB,volume 2345))

4110 Accesses

2 Citations

11 Altmetric

The following chapter highlights the methodological similarities/differences and strengths/weaknesses between systematic reviews and two common alternative approaches for knowledge synthesis: rapid reviews and scoping reviews. In doing so, the intention is to provide readers with guidance in determining whether a rapid or scoping review may be more appropriate for addressing the research question(s) and objective(s) of the review team and knowledge users versus a traditional systematic review. To supplement this discussion, this chapter presents widely adopted tools and resources to facilitate the conduct and reporting of both rapid and scoping reviews.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, Strifler L, Ghassemi M, Ivory J, Perrier L, Hutton B, Moher D, Straus SE (2015) A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med 13:224. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Peters MD (2016) In no uncertain terms: the importance of a defined objective in scoping reviews. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 14(2):1–4. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbisrir-2016-2838

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E (2018) Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 18(1):143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Tricco AC, Antony J, Soobiah C, Kastner M, MacDonald H, Cogo E, Lillie E, Tran J, Straus SE (2016) Knowledge synthesis methods for integrating qualitative and quantitative data: a scoping review reveals poor operationalization of the methodological steps. J Clin Epidemiol 73:29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.12.011

Lasserson TJ, Thomas J, Higgins JPT. Chapter 1: Starting a review. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook .

Aromataris E, Munn Z. Chapter 1: JBI Systematic Reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI, 2020. Available from https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-02

Google Scholar  

Aromataris E, Pearson A (2014) The systematic review: an overview. Am J Nurs 114:47–55

Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Moher D (2011) The art and science of knowledge synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol 64(1):11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.007

Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Jordan Z (2018) What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol 18(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 4:1

Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB (2015) Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc 13(3):141–146. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedeld DM, Cogoe E, Foersterf V, Lefebvreb C (2016) PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol 75:40–46

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al. (2020) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews BMJ 2021; 372 :n71 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 . Available at: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n71 ):

PRISMA (2015) PRISMA endorsers. http://www.prisma-statement.org/Endorsement/PRISMAEndorsers . Accessed 15 Feb 2020

Petticrew M, Roberts H (2006) Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Blackwell Publishing, Malden

Book   Google Scholar  

Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Kamel C, King VJ (2020) Nussbaumer-Streit B, Stevens A, Hamel C, Affengruber L. Cochrane Rapid Reviews. Interim Guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group

Tricco AC (2017) Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide. World Health Organization, Geneva

Rios P, Radhakrishnan, A, Thomas SM, Darvesh N, Straus SE, Tricco AC (2020) Guidelines for preventing respiratory illness in older adults aged 60 years and above living in long-term care: a rapid review of clinical practice guidelines. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.19.20039180

Rios P, Radhakrishnan A, Thomas SM, Darvesh N, Straus SE, Tricco AC (2020) Preventing respiratory illness in older adults aged 60 years and above living in long-term care: a rapid overview of reviews. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.19.20039081

Rios P, Radhakrishnan A, Antony J, Thomas SM, Muller M, Straus SE, Tricco AC (2020) Effectiveness and safety of antiviral or antibody treatments for coronavirus: a rapid review. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.19.20039008

Dobbins M (2017) Rapid review guidebook: steps for conducting a rapid review

Tricco AC, Antony J, Straus SE (2015) Systematic reviews vs rapid reviews: what’s the difference? CADTH rapid review summit. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/events/Andrea-Tricco_RR-vs-Systematic-Reviews_Feb-4-2015.pdf

Abou-Setta AM, Jeyaraman M, Attia A, Al-Inany HG, Ferri M, Ansari MT, Garritty CM, Bond K, Norris SL (2016) Methods for developing evidence reviews in short periods of time: a scoping review. PLoS One 11(12):e0165903

Science CfO (2020) Open science framework register. https://cos.io/our-products/osf/

Stevens A, Garritty C, Hersi M, Moher D (2018) Developing PRISMA-RR, a reporting guideline for rapid reviews of primary studies (Protocol) https://www.equator-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/PRISMA-RR-protocol.pdf

Peters MDJ, Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A.C., Khalil, H. (2020) Chapter 11: scoping reviews. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewer’s manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute, Adelaide

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters MDJ, Horsley T, Weeks L, Hempel S, Akl EA, Chang C, McGowan J, Stewart L, Hartling L, Aldcroft A, Wilson MG, Garritty C, Lewin S, Godfrey CM, Macdonald MT, Langlois EV, Soares-Weiser K, Moriarty J, Clifford T, Tuncalp O, Straus SE (2018) PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 169(7):467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien K, Colquhoun H, Kastner M, Levac D, Ng C, Sharpe JP, Wilson K, Kenny M, Warren R, Wilson C, Stelfox HT, Straus SE (2016) A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 16:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4

Tricco AC, Zarin W, Ghassemi M, Nincic V, Lillie E, Page MJ, Shamseer L, Antony J, Rios P, Hwee J, Veroniki AA, Moher D, Hartling L, Pham B, Straus SE (2018) Same family, different species: methodological conduct and quality varies according to purpose for five types of knowledge synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol 96:133–142

Arksey H, O’Malley L (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. In J Social Res Methodol 8(1):19–32

Article   Google Scholar  

Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK (2010) Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci 5:69

Tricco AC, Rios P, Zarin W, Cardoso R, Straus SE (2018) Prevention and management of unprofessional behaviour among adults in the workplace: a scoping review. PLoS One 13(7):e0201187

McGowan J, Straus S, Moher D, Langlois EV, O’Brien KK, Horsley T, Aldcroft A, Zarin W, Garitty CM, Hempel S, Lillie E, Tunçalp O, Tricco AC (2020) Reporting scoping reviews—PRISMA ScR extension. J Clin Epidemiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.03.016

Darvesh N, Radhakrishnan A, Lachance CC, Nincic V, Sharpe JP, Ghassemi M, Straus SE, Tricco AC (2020) Exploring the prevalence of gaming disorder and Internet gaming disorder: a rapid scoping review. Syst Rev 9:68

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Zachary Bouck & Andrea C. Tricco

Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Zachary Bouck, Sharon E. Straus & Andrea C. Tricco

Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Sharon E. Straus

Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Sharon E. Straus & Andrea C. Tricco

Queen’s Collaboration for Health Care Quality Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada

Andrea C. Tricco

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea C. Tricco .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology University of Ioannina Medical School, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics Imperial College London London, UK, Ioannina, Greece

Evangelos Evangelou

Knowledge Translation Program Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Department of Surgery and Cancer Faculty of Medicine Institute of Reproductive and Developmental Biology Imperial College London, UK ISSN, Toronto, ON, Canada

Areti Angeliki Veroniki

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature

About this protocol

Bouck, Z., Straus, S.E., Tricco, A.C. (2022). Systematic Versus Rapid Versus Scoping Reviews. In: Evangelou, E., Veroniki, A.A. (eds) Meta-Research. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 2345. Humana, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-1566-9_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-1566-9_6

Published : 23 September 2021

Publisher Name : Humana, New York, NY

Print ISBN : 978-1-0716-1565-2

Online ISBN : 978-1-0716-1566-9

eBook Packages : Springer Protocols

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Which review is that? A guide to review types.

• Which review is that?
• Review Comparison Chart
• Decision Tool
• Critical Review
• Integrative Review
• Narrative Review
• State of the Art Review
• Narrative Summary
• Systematic Review
• Meta-analysis
• Comparative Effectiveness Review
• Diagnostic Systematic Review
• Network Meta-analysis
• Prognostic Review
• Psychometric Review
• Review of Economic Evaluations
• Systematic Review of Epidemiology Studies
• Living Systematic Reviews
• Umbrella Review
• Review of Reviews

Rapid Review

• Rapid Evidence Assessment
• Rapid Realist Review
• Qualitative Evidence Synthesis
• Qualitative Interpretive Meta-synthesis
• Qualitative Meta-synthesis
• Qualitative Research Synthesis
• Framework Synthesis - Best-fit Framework Synthesis
• Meta-aggregation
• Meta-ethnography
• Meta-interpretation
• Meta-narrative Review
• Meta-summary
• Thematic Synthesis
• Mixed Methods Synthesis
• Narrative Synthesis
• Bayesian Meta-analysis
• EPPI-Centre Review
• Critical Interpretive Synthesis
• Realist Synthesis - Realist Review
• Scoping Review
• Mapping Review
• Systematised Review
• Concept Synthesis
• Expert Opinion - Policy Review
• Technology Assessment Review
• Methodological Review
• Systematic Search and Review

“A rapid review is a form of knowledge synthesis that accelerates the process of conducting a traditional systematic review through streamlining or omitting specific methods to produce evidence for stakeholders in a resource-efficient manner.” (Garritty et. al, 2020)

Rapid reviews target high quality and authoritative resources for time-critical decision-making or clinically urgent questions. Yet like a systematic review they aim to identify the key concepts, theories and resources in a field, and to survey the major research studies.  Less time may be spent on critical appraisal as systematic reviews, evidence briefs and clinical guidelines are sought in preference to exhaustive coverage of primary studies.

Further Reading/Resources

Garritty, C., Hamel, C., Trivella, M., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Devane, D., ... & King, V. J. (2024). Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness. bmj , 384 . Full Text

Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Kamel C, King VJ, Nussbaumer-Streit B, Stevens A, Hamel C, Affengruber L. Cochrane Rapid Reviews. Interim Guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. March 2020. Full Text PDF Other

Cochrane Rapid Reviews: Learning Live webinar series Link Grant MJ, Booth A.  A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.   Health Information and Libraries Journal.   2009; 26(2):91-108. Full Text Haby, M.M., Chapman, E., Clark, R.  et al.  What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review.  Health Res Policy Sys   14,  83 (2016). Full Text Schünemann, H. (Ed.). (n.d.). Advances in rapid reviews . www.biomedcentral.com. Retrieved June 21, 2022, from https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/arr  Link Dobbins, M. (2017). Rapid review guidebook. Natlonal Collaborating Centre for  Methods and Tools , 13 , 25.  Full Text PDF Pandor A, Kaltenthaler E, Martyn-St James M, Wong R, Cooper K, Dimairo M, O’Cathain A, Campbell F, Booth A. (2019), Delphi consensus reached to produce a decision tool for SelecTing Approaches for Rapid Reviews (STARR), Journal of Clinical Epidemiology  Link Ganann R, Ciliska D and Helen T.  Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews.  Implementation Science.  2010; 5:56. Full Text Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods.   BMC Medicine . 2015;13:224. Full Text

Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012). Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic reviews, 1(1), 1. Full Text

Abboah-Offei, M., Salifu, Y., Adewale, B., Bayuo, J., Ofosu-Poku, R., & Opare-Lokko, E. (2021). A rapid review of the use of face mask in preventing the spread of COVID-19.  International journal of nursing studies advances ,  3 , 100013. Full Text Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Mayr, V., Dobrescu, A. I., Chapman, A., Persad, E., Klerings, I., ... & Gartlehner, G. (2020). Quarantine alone or in combination with other public health measures to control COVID‐19: a rapid review. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (9). Full Text

References Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Kamel C, King VJ, Nussbaumer-Streit B, Stevens A, Hamel C, Affengruber L. Cochrane Rapid Reviews. Interim Guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. March 2020. Full Text PDF  

• << Previous: Rapid Review Family
• Next: Rapid Evidence Assessment >>
• Last Updated: Apr 30, 2024 9:02 AM
• URL: https://unimelb.libguides.com/whichreview

• Off-Campus Access
• Find Resources
• Research Support
• Reserve Space
•  Facebook
• -->  X
•  YouTube
•  LinkedIn
•  Instagram
•  HSHSL Updates RSS Feed
•  Connective Issues Newsletter

601 West Lombard Street Baltimore MD 21201-1512 Reference: 410-706-7996 Circulation: 410-706-7928

Systematic Review Service: What Type of Review is Right for You?

• Introduction
• Steps in a Systematic Review
• PRISMA and Other Standards
• Critical Appraisal of Studies
• What Type of Review is Right for You?

Need Help Deciding?

If you are unsure what kind of review is most appropriate for your question, timeframe, or resources, read about the common types of reviews below, or try following our decision tree .

Scoping Reviews

A scoping review "provides a preliminary assessment of the potential size and scope of available research literature. It aims to identify the nature and extent of research evidence." ( Grant & Booth, 2009 ) These reviews, also called mapping reviews or scoping studies, can be used to identify key concepts within a field and clarify definitions in terminology. Scoping reviews can be useful for examining emerging evidence in instances when it is unclear what specific question should be addressed. They differ from systematic reviews by addressing broader topics and not typically assessing the quality of individual studies.

The Scoping Review Process ( Arksey & O'Malley, 2005 ; Peters et al., 2015 ; Peters et al., 2020 )

• Defining the research question
• Searching the evidence
• Selecting the evidence
• Extracting or "charting" the data
• Summarizing and reporting the evidence

Authors of scoping reviews may find it helpful to use the PCC (population, concept, context) framework when formulating a research question.

• HSHSL Scoping Review Protocol Template A protocol template to complete before working with an HSHSL librarian on a scoping review.
• PRISMA for Scoping Reviews The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews was published in 2018. The checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items to include when completing a scoping review.
• JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis - Scoping Reviews Chapter JBI's guide to conducting scoping reviews.

Rapid Reviews

Rapid reviews aim to be rigorous in their methodology but set limits on the process in order to shorten the timeframe of review completion ( Grant & Booth, 2009 ). Several stages of the review process may be limited, including the scope of the question, the comprehensiveness of the search strategy, or the quality appraisal. The review authors explore the effects these limited methods may have had on the results.

• Rapid Review Protocol A guide to the steps in a rapid review from the VCU Libraries
• Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group Cochrane's Methods Group dedicated to the conduct of rapid reviews.
• Advances in Rapid Reviews A 2015 series of articles in the journal Systematic Reviews about rapid review methodology
• Introduction to Rapid Reviews Webinar Webinar from the Canadian Cochrane Centre on rapid reviews
• CADTH Rapid Review Summit Presentations from the 2015 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health summit on rapid reviews

Literature Reviews

A literature review is an account of what has been published by scholars and researchers on a particular topic. You may be asked to write one as an assignment for class, or you may be writing one as part of the introduction to a research article or dissertation. This type of review does not follow any standardized methodology.

A literature review should:

• Tell the reader what is known, or not known, about a particular issue, topic, or subject
• Demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of a topic
• Establish context or background for your argument
• Help you develop your own ideas and perspective
• Writing the Literature Review (Part 1) Part 1 of a video for graduate students on writing a literature review
• Writing the Literature Review (Part 2) Part 2 of a video for graduate students on writing a literature review

Umbrella Reviews

An umbrella review addresses the growing number of systematic reviews and research syntheses being published each year. An umbrella review, or a review of reviews, is a systematic review that only considers other systematic reviews as an eligible study type for inclusion.

• JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis JBI's guide to conducting umbrella reviews.

Integrative Reviews

Well done integrative reviews present the state of the science, contribute to theory development, and have direct applicability to practice and policy ( Whittemore and Knafl, 2005 ). Integrative reviews allow for the inclusion of experimental and non-experimental research. They may combine data from theoretical literature in addition to empirical studies. Integrative reviews have been labeled as the "broadest type of research review methods" because they allow for the inclusion of a variety of types of data; but they also may serve to define concepts, review theories, review evidence and analyze methodological issues.

Stages of an Integrative Review ( Whittemore and Knafl )

• Problem identification
• Literature search
• Data evaluation
• Data analysis
• Presentation
• Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples A discussion of how to organize and write integrative reviews (Torraco, 2005).
• << Previous: Covidence
• Last Updated: Feb 1, 2023 3:10 PM
• URL: https://guides.hshsl.umaryland.edu/systematic

Projects Maintained by the HSHSL

• Alumni & Associates
• Congenital Heart Disease
• Corporate Services
• Embracing mHealth
• Faith Community Nursing
• Project SHARE Curriculum
• Citizen Science: Gearing Up For Discovery (edX)
• UMB Digital Archive
• Weise Gallery

University of Maryland Schools

• School of Dentistry
• Graduate School
• School of Law
• School of Medicine
• School of Nursing
• School of Pharmacy
• School of Social Work

Connective Issues E-Newsletter

Read Our Latest Issue

Join our subscribers!

Contact Us | Hours | Directions | Privacy Policy | Disclaimers | Supporting the Library | Suggestion Box | HSHSL Building Work Order | Web Accessibility | Diversity Statement

601 W. Lombard Street | Baltimore, Maryland 21201-1512 | 410-706-7995

Systematic Reviews: Types of reviews

Systematic literature reviews.

Using a systematic approach in conducting a literature review

A literature review may be undertaken in a systematic way using a rigorous and structured search strategy in order to be comprehensive, without necessarily attempting to include all available research on a particular topic, as in a systematic review.

Why be systematic?  This approach can:

• Provide a robust overview of the available literature on your topic
• Ensure relevant literature is identified and key publications are not overlooked
• Reduce irrelevant search results through search planning
• Help you to create a reproducible search strategy.

In addition, applying a systematic approach will allow you to work more efficiently. Not every review is a systematic review. Be sure to select the review type that matches the purpose and scope of your project. All reviews should be methodical and done in a careful and deliberate manner with a defined protocol. 

Questions to ask yourself:

• What is the purpose of this review? 
• What is the research question?
• How long do I have to complete it?
• Am I doing it alone or part of a team?
• How much of the literature do I need to capture?
• Does my literature search have to be transparent and replicable?
• Are there standard methods that need to be followed
• Types of reviews
• Systematic review
• Rapid review
• Umbrella review

Scoping review

• Narrative review

A systematic review attempts to identify, appraise and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a given research question. Researchers conducting systematic reviews use explicit methods aimed at minimizing bias in order to produce more reliable findings that can be used to inform decision making.

An essential step in the early development of a systematic review is the development of a review protocol. A protocol pre-defines the objectives and methods of the systematic review which allows transparency of the process. It must be done prior to conducting the systematic review as it is important in restricting the presence of reporting bias. The protocol is a completely separate document to the systematic review report.

Adapted from:  JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis

In summary, a systematic review:

• Addresses a specific question
• Uses specified methodology
• Assesses quality of the literature
• Requires a team and long term commitment

What is a rapid review?

The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group has proposed the following definition: “A form of knowledge synthesis that accelerates the process of conducting a traditional systematic review through streamlining or omitting specific methods to produce evidence for stakeholders in a resource-efficient manner.”

Rapid reviews are usually undertaken when decision makers have urgent and emerging needs which require evidence produced on a short time frame. Typically, to compensate for the short time frame of a rapid review, methodological rigour may be sacrificed. For example, the grey literature may not be sought and preference may be given to the more readily available research published and written in English. 

A rapid review follows most of the principle steps of a systematic review, using systematic and transparent methods to identify, select, critically appraise and analyze data from relevant research. However, to provide timely evidence, some of the components of a systematic review process are either simplified or omitted. There are various approaches for simplifying the review components, such as by reducing the number of databases, assigning a single reviewer in each step while another reviewer verifies the results, excluding or limiting the use of grey literature, or by narrowing the scope of the review. In general, a rapid review takes about four months or less.

Adapted from: Health Evaluation and Applied Research Development (HEARD).  (June 25th, 2018). Rapid reviews versus systematic reviews. https://www.heardproject.org/news/rapid-review-vs-systematic-review-what-are-the-differences/

Umbrella reviews are sometimes referred to as a "review of reviews". They are an attempt to identify and appraise, extract and summarise all the evidence from research syntheses related to a topic or question. 

Umbrella reviews may:

• Include analyses of different interventions for the same problem or condition.
• Analyse the same intervention and condition, but different outcomes.
• Analyse the same intervention but different conditions, problems or populations.

Umbrella reviews offer the possibility to address a broad scope of issues related to the topic of interest.

In summary, an umbrella review:

• Is a systematic review of systematic reviews 
• Synthesizes systematic reviews of the same topic
• Assesses scope and quality of individual systematic reviews

"Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps"  (Tricco, et al., 2018).

"Scoping reviews conducted as precursors to systematic reviews may enable authors to identify the nature of a broad field of evidence so that ensuing reviews can be assured of locating adequate numbers of relevant studies for inclusion" (Munn, Z., Peters, M., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E., 2018).

A scoping review may be undertaken as a preliminary exercise prior to the conduct of a systematic review, or as a stand alone review.

A scoping review may be used:

• As a precursor to a systematic review.
• To identify the types of available evidence in a given field.
• To identify and analyse knowledge gaps.
• To clarify key concepts/ definitions in the literature.
• To examine how research is conducted on a certain topic or field.
• To identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept.

Adapted from:  JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, chapter 11 Scoping reviews. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-01

Getting started: Cochrane: Scoping reviews: what they are and how you can do them

Reporting: The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews was published in 2018. The checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items to include when completing a scoping review. Scoping reviews serve to synthesize evidence and assess the scope of literature on a topic. Among other objectives, scoping reviews help determine whether a systematic review of the literature is warranted.

A traditional literature review or narrative review examines and evaluates the scholarly literature on a topic. Literature reviews often do not answer one specific question, rather they usually bring together a summary of the literature in a qualitative manner.

A literature review may be undertaken in a systematic way in order to be comprehensive, without being a systematic review. It is important to recognise the differences between the two and determine which type of review is best suited to your needs - or whether one of the other reviews detailed here is more applicable.

Narrative reviews:

• provide a (generally qualitative) summary of the relevant literature, as determined by the author.
• do not necessarily provide an analysis of the literature or its quality.
• usually do not include a description of the methodology of the search process.
• refer to key journal literature without going into the grey literature.
• don't always answer a specific research question.
• are not protocol driven.

Barnard, M. (2015). Research essentials: How to undertake a literature review . Nursing Children and Young People, 27 (10), 12-12. doi:10.7748/ncyp.27.10.12.s15

Bettany-Saltikov, J. (2010). Learning how to undertake a systematic review: Part 1 . Nursing Standard , 24 (40): 47-55.

Grant, M.J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies .  Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26 (2), 91-108.  doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Kowalczyk, N., & Truluck, C. (2013). Literature reviews and systematic reviews: What is the difference? Radiologic Technology, 85 (2), 219-222.

Munn, Z., Peters, M., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18 (1), 1-7. doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., & Jordan, Z. (2018). What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences . BMC Medical Research Methodology , 18 (1), 5. https://doi-org.ezproxy.ecu.edu.au/10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4

Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K. (2005). Realist review: A new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 10 (3), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819054308530

Robinson, P., & Lowe, J. (2015). Literature reviews vs systematic reviews . Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39 (2), 103-103. doi:10.1111/1753-6405.12393

Tricco, A., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., . . . Straus, S. (2018). Prisma extension for scoping reviews (prisma-scr): Checklist and explanation . Annals of Internal Medicine, 169 (7), 467-467.

• << Previous: Getting started
• Next: Systematic review process >>
• Getting started
• Formulate the question
• SR protocol
• Levels of evidence and study design
• Searching for systematic reviews
• Search strategies
• Subject databases
• Keeping up to date/Alerts
• Trial registers
• Conference proceedings
• Critical appraisal
• Documenting and reporting
• Managing search results
• Statistical methods
• Journal information/publishing
• Contact a librarian
• Last Updated: May 3, 2024 9:39 AM
• URL: https://ecu.au.libguides.com/systematic-reviews

Edith Cowan University acknowledges and respects the Noongar people, who are the traditional custodians of the land upon which its campuses stand and its programs operate. In particular ECU pays its respects to the Elders, past and present, of the Noongar people, and embrace their culture, wisdom and knowledge.

• About Covidence and systematic reviews

What are the different types of review?

Systematic literature reviews (slrs).

SLR’s attempt to collate all empirical evidence that fit pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific clearly-formulated research question.  A SLR uses explicit and reproducible systematic methods that are selected with a view to minimizing bias, thus providing more reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made.

The process starts with a research question and a protocol or research plan. A review team searches for studies to answer the question using a highly sensitive search strategy. The retrieved studies are then screened for eligibility using pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria (this is done by at least two people working independently). Next, the reviewers extract the relevant data and assess the quality of the included studies. Finally, the review team synthesizes the extracted study data and presents the results. 

A SLR may contain meta-analyses (statistical analysis). A SLR which is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available is often known as a living SLR.

Rapid reviews

Rapid reviews aim to produce a rigorous synthesis quickly (due to time constraints/urgency), based on a pre-defined research question. The review process for rapid reviews is the same as for a more traditional systematic review: the emphasis is on a replicable pre-specified search, and screening methods that minimize the risk of bias, although potentially isn’t as stringent as a formal systematic review.

The process operates within pre-specified limits (for example, by restricting searches to articles published during a specific timeframe) and is usually run by a multidisciplinary team with expertise in systematic review methods.

Umbrella reviews or Overview of reviews

An umbrella review is a review of multiple systematic reviews. The process uses explicit and systematic methods to search for, and identify, systematic reviews on related research questions in the same topic area. The purpose of an umbrella review is to synthesize the results of the systematic reviews across important outcomes. 

Scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are exploratory and they typically address a broad question, compared to a systematic review that typically has a more targeted question. 

Researchers conduct scoping reviews to assess the extent of the available evidence, to organize it into groups and to highlight gaps. If a scoping review finds no studies, this might help researchers to decide that a systematic review is likely to be of limited value and that resources could be better directed elsewhere.

Literature reviews or narrative reviews

Literature, or narrative, reviews provide an overview of what is known about a particular topic. They evaluate the material, rather than simply restating it, but the methods used to do this are not usually prespecified and they are not described in detail in the review. The search might be comprehensive but it does not aim to be exhaustive. Literature reviews are often topic based  and can take the form of a discussion. Literature reviews lack precision and replicability and can  present their findings in the context of what has come before. Often, this sort of synthesis does not attempt to control for the author’s own bias. The results or conclusion of a literature review is likely to be presented in a narrative format rather than statistical methods.

Take a look at the articles about the different types of review on the Covidence blog:

• Systematic review types: meet the family
• The difference between a systematic review and a literature review
• The difference between a systematic review and a meta-analysis

Comparison of a full systematic review versus rapid review approaches to assess a newborn screening test for tyrosinemia type 1

Affiliations.

• 1 Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
• 2 Warwick Library, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
• PMID: 28703492
• DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1255

Background: Rapid reviews are increasingly used to replace/complement systematic reviews to support evidence-based decision-making. Little is known about how this expedited process affects results.

Objectives: To assess differences between rapid and systematic review approaches for a case study of test accuracy of succinylacetone for detecting tyrosinemia type 1.

Methods: Two reviewers conducted an "enhanced" rapid review then a systematic review. The enhanced rapid review involved narrower searches, a single reviewer checking 20% of titles/abstracts and data extraction, and quality assessment using an unadjusted QUADAS-2. Two reviewers performed the systematic review with a tailored QUADAS-2. Post hoc analysis examined rapid reviewing with a single reviewer (basic rapid review).

Results: Ten papers were included. Basic rapid reviews would have missed 1 or 4 of these (dependent on which reviewer). Enhanced rapid and systematic reviews identified all 10 papers; one paper was only identified in the rapid review through reference checking. Two thousand one hundred seventy-six fewer title/abstracts and 129 fewer full texts were screened during the enhanced rapid review than the systematic review. The unadjusted QUADAS-2 generated more "unclear" ratings than the adjusted QUADAS-2 [29/70 (41.4%) versus 16/70 (22.9%)], and fewer "high" ratings [22/70 (31.4%) versus 42/70 (60.0%)]. Basic rapid reviews contained important inaccuracies in data extraction, which were detected by a second reviewer in the enhanced rapid and systematic reviews.

Conclusions: Enhanced rapid reviews with 20% checking by a second reviewer may be an appropriate tool for policymakers to expeditiously assess evidence. Basic rapid reviews (single reviewer) have higher risks of important inaccuracies and omissions.

Keywords: evidence-based practice; literature searching; rapid review; research methods; systematic review.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Publication types

• Comparative Study
• Cost-Benefit Analysis
• Decision Making
• Evidence-Based Medicine
• Health Policy
• Heptanoates* / chemistry
• Infant, Newborn
• Neonatal Screening* / methods
• Reproducibility of Results
• Research Design
• Review Literature as Topic*
• Systematic Reviews as Topic*
• Tyrosinemias* / diagnosis
• Heptanoates
• succinylacetone

Grants and funding

• CDF-2016-09-018/DH_/Department of Health/United Kingdom

Literature Review vs Systematic Review

• Literature Review vs. Systematic Review
• Primary vs. Secondary Sources
• Databases and Articles
• Specific Journal or Article

Subject Guide

Definitions

It’s common to confuse systematic and literature reviews because both are used to provide a summary of the existent literature or research on a specific topic. Regardless of this commonality, both types of review vary significantly. The following table provides a detailed explanation as well as the differences between systematic and literature reviews. 

Kysh, Lynn (2013): Difference between a systematic review and a literature review. [figshare]. Available at:  http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.766364

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Primary vs. Secondary Sources >>
• Last Updated: Dec 15, 2023 10:19 AM
• URL: https://libguides.sjsu.edu/LitRevVSSysRev

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Cryptography and Security

Title: large language models for cyber security: a systematic literature review.

Abstract: The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has opened up new opportunities for leveraging artificial intelligence in various domains, including cybersecurity. As the volume and sophistication of cyber threats continue to grow, there is an increasing need for intelligent systems that can automatically detect vulnerabilities, analyze malware, and respond to attacks. In this survey, we conduct a comprehensive review of the literature on the application of LLMs in cybersecurity (LLM4Security). By comprehensively collecting over 30K relevant papers and systematically analyzing 127 papers from top security and software engineering venues, we aim to provide a holistic view of how LLMs are being used to solve diverse problems across the cybersecurity domain. Through our analysis, we identify several key findings. First, we observe that LLMs are being applied to a wide range of cybersecurity tasks, including vulnerability detection, malware analysis, network intrusion detection, and phishing detection. Second, we find that the datasets used for training and evaluating LLMs in these tasks are often limited in size and diversity, highlighting the need for more comprehensive and representative datasets. Third, we identify several promising techniques for adapting LLMs to specific cybersecurity domains, such as fine-tuning, transfer learning, and domain-specific pre-training. Finally, we discuss the main challenges and opportunities for future research in LLM4Security, including the need for more interpretable and explainable models, the importance of addressing data privacy and security concerns, and the potential for leveraging LLMs for proactive defense and threat hunting. Overall, our survey provides a comprehensive overview of the current state-of-the-art in LLM4Security and identifies several promising directions for future research.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

KKR won by 18 runs

ENG Women won by 53 runs

Day 1 - Sri Lanka A chose to bat.

Day 2 - Durham trail by 357 runs.

Day 2 - Kent trail by 507 runs.

Day 2 - Nottingham trail by 52 runs.

Day 2 - Surrey trail by 16 runs.

Day 2 - Glamorgan lead by 133 runs.

Day 2 - Gloucs lead by 315 runs.

Chennai Super Kings

Rajasthan Royals

Match yet to begin

Royal Challengers Bengaluru

Delhi Capitals

Match starts in 3 hrs 26 mins

Bishop: RCB batters' intent the key ingredient in turnaround

Deep dasgupta: quite a statement from srh, rapid fire review: head and abhishek, or salt and narine, why it's time for anderson to bid farewell to his test career, rapid fire review - will csk finish in the top four.

And what was the turning point in Punjab Kings vs Chennai Super Kings at Dharamsala

Related videos

'refreshing to see a batter attack bumrah', aaron: not going to be easy for rcb to dominate axar and kuldeep, mcclenaghan: biggest concern for dc is how to replace pant the batter, are rajasthan royals losing momentum at wrong time, aaron: 'ruturaj should open; he shouldn't be batting at no. 3 at all', 'i have seen miracles happen' - gill not giving up on playoff hopes, mcclenaghan: 'nice to see mohit back to his best', dasgupta: 'it seems csk have resigned their fate to their batters', review: who was better - gill or sudharsan did csk get overseas combination wrong, mcclenaghan praises sai sudharsan's maturity, what went wrong for the csk bowlers, mcclenaghan: 'mumbai indians lacking experience in overseas contingent', 'even narine's runs and wickets won't tell you the whole story of his impact', finch and ferguson reject claim that maxwell is 'most overrated ever', why was harpreet brar left out of the pbks xi, rapid fire review: misplaced tactics cost punjab, should kohli open for india at the t20 world cup, 'impressive how often kohli used the sweep against spinners', dasgupta: 'patidar is absolutely brilliant against spin', do gujarat titans need a complete overhaul after this season, should csk drop rahane and open with mitchell, how harshal has improved in the second half of the season, dropping rabada a 'knee jerk' reaction, how kohli and faf have raised their tempo, bishop: arshdeep not executing the yorker as often as he does at his best, mcclenaghan: 'rahul needs to be given the confidence that it's okay to fail', espncricinfo shows.

More from Time:Out